DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 10-11, 17 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (PGPUB 20230106101), hereinafter as Zhao.
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches a method comprising:
identifying at least one sensor datum from at least one sensor (Fig 1, T sensor 110) on a computing device (Fig 1, 100 storage system);
determining that the at least one sensor datum satisfies at least one criterion ([0020] sensor reaching …a threshold…triggering…calibration); and
in response to the at least one sensor datum satisfying the at least one criterion, initiating a calibration of memory on the computing device ([0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao teaches a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, direct the at least one processor to perform a method, the method comprising:
identifying at least one sensor datum from at least one sensor on a computing device (Fig 1);
determining that the at least one sensor datum satisfies at least one criterion ([0020]); and
in response to the at least one sensor datum satisfying the at least one criterion, initiating a calibration of memory on the computing device ([0020]).
Regarding claim 15, Zhao teaches a computing apparatus comprising:
a computer-readable storage media;
at least one processor operatively coupled to the computer-readable storage media (Fig 1); and
program instructions stored on the computer-readable storage media that, when executed by the at least one processor, direct the computing apparatus to perform a method, the method comprising:
identifying at least one sensor datum from at least one sensor on a computing device (Fig 1);
determining that the at least one sensor datum satisfies at least one criterion ([0020]); and
in response to the at least one sensor datum satisfying the at least one criterion, initiating a calibration of memory on the computing device ([0020]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, in view of Bazarsky et al. (Patent 10379739), hereinafter as Bazarsky.
Regarding claim 2, Zhao teaches a method as in rejection of claim 1, and with a sensor, although not expressly a sensor data from a set of sensors, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8; determining a memory state associated with the sensor data ([0024] a set of performance profile generated);
But not expressly generating a model based on the sensor data and the memory state, wherein determining that the at least one sensor datum satisfies the at least one criterion comprises:
applying the model to the at least one sensor datum to generate an output; and
determining that the output satisfies the at least one criterion;
Bazarsky teaches generating a model based on the sensor data and the memory state, wherein determining that the at least one sensor datum satisfies the at least one criterion comprises:
applying the model to the at least one sensor datum to generate an output; and
determining that the output satisfies the at least one criterion (Fig 3, step 306, and col 13 line 42-62).
Since Bazarsky and Zhao are both from the same field of semiconductor memory device, the purpose disclosed by Bazarsky would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Zhao.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the modeling method as in Bazarsky into the device of Zhao for the purpose of managing operation of the memory device in different environment conditions.
Regarding claim 7, Zhao teaches identifying sensor data from the computing device and at least one additional computing device (mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8);
Bazarsky teaches obtaining memory state information for the computing device and the at least one additional computing device, the memory state information associated with the sensor data; and
generating a model based on the sensor data and the memory state information (col 13 line 42-62).
Regarding claim 9/16/20, argument used in rejection of claim 2 applies.
Claim(s) 4, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao
Regarding claim 4, Zhao teaches
identifying a second temperature for the computing device measured at a second time before the first time (repeating a test/i.e. rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70); and
determining that the first temperature differs from the second temperature by a threshold amount. (Fig 2, different temperatures meaning there is a defined gap between the two temperatures).
Regarding claim 12/18, argument used in rejection of claim 4 applies.
Claim(s) 5-6, 13-14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, in view of Sheperek et al. (PGPUB 20220059179), hereinafter as Sheperek.
Regarding claim 6, Zhao teaches a method as in rejection of claim 1,
But not expressly the at least one sensor datum comprises a temperature, a humidity value, and a geographic location.
Sheperek teaches the at least one sensor datum comprises a temperature, a humidity value, and a geographic location ([0058] temperature, humidity…. Select memory partitions).
Since Sheperek and Zhao are both from the same field of semiconductor memory device, the purpose disclosed by Sheperek would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Zhao.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the monitoring method as in Sheperek into the device of Zhao for the purpose of managing operation of the memory device in different environment conditions.
Regarding claim 5, Zhao teaches identifying a second humidity value measured at a second time before the first time; and determining that the first humidity value differs from the second humidity value by a threshold amount (it is obvious different humidity will have a set difference values).
Regarding claim 13/19, argument used in rejection of claim 5 applies.
Regarding claim 14, argument used in rejection of claim 6 applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amir Zarabian can be reached at (571)272-1852. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIN HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Prosecution Insights